Tldr politics, glass ceilings, re-orgs, purposeless/abandoned projects. As a former Googler, I can see why people post these: internally Google is hyper-evangelized as the best place to work ever (why would you work anywhere else). When leaving, its a necessary step to form a good argument for yourself as to why you've decided to go against the culture. The personal spin makes it an interesting read.
For me, it was easy. In 2015, we really wanted to move back to our east coast flyover-city home from the Bay Area. Google would not let me work remotely, but Netflix would. So it was a no-brainer.
It turned out to be a great move. In my experience, just about everything is better about Netflix as compared to Google: impact, pay, freedom, culture. The only thing that's worse is that I really miss the on-campus food at Google. And TGIF, eng-misc, etc.
Guessing not a full time engineer or some kind of niche talent? Never heard of anyone going remote or even being a possibility. Its written into the culture and all job postings.
Most of the large tech companies allow but don’t advertise remote work flexibility for senior staff. I know someone who works remotely at Apple on a team on the other side of the country.
This. A lot of it depends on your VP and management chain. The VP above me at Google was very traditional and believed strongly in "butts in seats", and ironically complained he'd exhausted they bay area talent pool. There was a chance I could have moved to a different team at Google under a more remote-friendly VP, but its future and funding was much less certain, so I left instead.
That's what I'd hoped for at Google, and my manager would have been fine with me being remote. However, my VP did not allow remote work. We even lost out on having a fairly famous guy work for our team, because he was unable to transfer a deal he had with his current team where he could work 3 days at home (in Pleasanton, so the commute to Mountain View was terrible).
I'll never understand the anti-remote-work stubbornness, especially in obvious cases like that. The VP really expects talent to commute from Pleasanton, daily, when they could just work for any other of the Bay Area tech firms remotely, at an equal salary and similar benefits?
Remote work was a medical requirement for me and even in those circumstances Google refused to consider it. They also insisted part-time work wasn't an option (there were official policies for it that were kept secret!). So likewise, that was really all it took. It baffles me that companies can't be remotely flexible on these things - over 50% of the Google employees I interacted with daily were in other offices (or overseas, for that matter), so the cost of remote workers was already being paid.
IANAL but I don't think it's necessarily illegal by default under the ADA. The first thing the employee has to do is establish that their condition falls under a protected class and then they can request an accommodation. If the employer can demonstrate that there's no way to reasonably accommodate the employee then I believe they're off the hook - that is a much higher burden for a large company to satisfy than say for a small 10 person start-up.
Unsure for netflix, but when I was on the job hunt, Stack Overflow Jobboard (or whatever it's called now) was a great place to find remote / contract work.
> As a former Googler, I can see why people post these: internally Google is hyper-evangelized as the best place to work ever (why would you work anywhere else). When leaving, its a necessary step to form a good argument for yourself as to why you've decided to go against the culture.
As another former Googler, this was one of the most concerning things about my experience at Google. The pressure I put on myself and received from others when I was debating whether to leave was enormous, especially because it was my first job. Nevermind the rampant imposter syndrome while you still work there. In hindsight, it was super toxic and led me to stay there even longer than was good for me and burning out harder. I've talked to a few current Googlers and Xooglers who also felt that way.
As another former Googler, this was one of the most concerning things about my experience at Google. The pressure I put on myself and received from others when I was debating whether to leave was enormous, especially because it was my first job.
This was one of the reasons I decided to bail out after the first phone interview. I had some serious concerns, such as:
- I am not interested in working as an SRE when I just finished a PhD in Computational Linguistics.
- I am not really interested in living in London or Silicon Valley.
But any such question were all waved away with an air of 'such concerns are all irrelevant if you can work for the greatest company in existence'. The interviewer was really a nice person, but there seemed to be an immense groupthink.
(I now also have strong moral objections to working for Google, but that's another story.)
Yet another ex-Googler here.
"Working for the greatest company in existence" was the mindset since Google's earliest days, well before reaching that pedestal in the public eye.
They made tough offers to candidates back then, too, e.g., job titles taken down 1-2 levels, even when the job market was hot. Though practice started when job market was cold.
Many stories have been written about how their early hiring practices made for Google's huge success. I largely agree.
I always find the "best places to work" type lists a lot of crap. Usually its just a case of biggest and best known companies. I have worked for a real mix of places and the biggest companies haven't been any better than the smaller ones. Usually a good manager makes a far bigger difference.
I don't know the exact dynamics of how those Best Places to Work lists are compiled but I always got the feeling they were a form of vanity publishing used to keep local business journals and newspapers afloat.
Funny story: after a couple years at last big corp I worked for, I guess there was a decision made to join the ranks of the area's Best Places to Work. So memos were circulated, surveys were sent out and lo and behold, a year later the announcement was made: we had made the list of Best Places to Work, Large Company category. There was even a company-wide ceremony with a big cake to celebrate the feat.
So a few weeks later, I come across the actual dead-tree journal touting that year's Best Places to Work laying around in our breakroom. I open it up to find out where we actually ranked. Out of 44 companies in our category, #44.
We improved over the next couple years. Banners appeared around campus celebrating our achievement. The cakes got bigger. Things got worse for me personally at the company.
As you can probably guess, the impression I and others got was that the ranking was actually more important than actual employee sentiment. And I got the distinct sense that HR was motivated even moreso than previously for the sake of their Best Places ranking to push out employees that were critical (even legitimately, perhaps especially legitimately) of the way the company operated than deal constructively with their concerns.
It's just a way to attract best manpower. Why not? Kind of HR marketing. Anyway "best place to work" is not patented, anybody could attach their "version" of this tag to any company. Like "people of the year" or "most wealthiest".
I worked at a 'best place to work', and... the pay/benefits for many of the 'regular' folks was pretty good - above average for sure. and overall it was nice to work there, but the politics in the IT dept were difficult for me to deal with. I asked for a transfer to another project or another area and was declined so... there wasn't much option except to leave. I had one guy telling me to 'chill out' and relax some - he was dating the niece of the dept manager, so, there wasn't much chance of him having issues there. there was very much a culture of "person X has worked here longer, listen to them" regardless of how much experience they had with respect to the actual domain or technology on the project, which was frustrating. The managers I had were, most of them, nice people - I liked them. But it didn't seem they noticed or cared about the inefficiencies and politics going on. More than a few people said - "if you want to move up here, it's going to take 5-10 years of just 'being around'" and... I didn't care to wait that long (especially not when the gospel preached was about merit and ability being the measuring sticks).
Hmm not sure about this. I would say that the size of the company (or rather, its profit/disposable income) greatly affects flexibility of employee benefiting policies, at least when it comes to the financial costs associated with them.
So yes, if you work in a very profitable company under a crappy manager then it will be a very crappy life. If you work in a non-profitable company under a great manager it will be a better life than the former but not matter how great your manager is he/she won't be able to help you with things like benefits, compensation, additional hardware/software to make your work easier. The size of the company also gives a lot more options to find different projects to work on.
I would say statistically speaking you are likely to end up with an average manager and if you are then it's better to be at a largely profitable company while under such a manager. :)
This is one of the scariest things about Google, and indicative of its public face, too. People in the US often compare the government to Big Brother in 1984, but the government can't be Big Brother if people think that, as one of the most important qualities of Big Brother was that people actually loved him. The entire system rested on the idea that people believe in it out of love, not out of fear. Google seems to be the same. Only when you insist on having both power and the love of those you have power over can you truly be Big Brother.
While I risk being pedantic, I question the notion that the people in 1984 "love" big brother with the usual denotation. I believe that "love" in context implies more of a unity of being / complete submission to rather than any sort of romance. A key point in the book is the control over truth effected through the control of knowledge and history. A government in a totalitarian state like North Korea effectively is, for its own people, the government from 1984. Complete power over information will inevitably lead to the kind of "love" expressed by Winston in room 101. If the power of the US government to monitor and censor information grows, it is unlikely but not completely impossible for a similar situation to eventually arise.
But this is already happening with Google, and as recent events show, Google, Facebook and Twitter have more control over information than the US government.
Yeah I've been at Google a decade and I strongly don't agree with the notion that it's hyper evangelized as the best place to work. In official communications, yes, but I think most people here are aware of the drawbacks and problems. Maybe even a little too aware. Internal lists are rife with the discussions of even the slightest deviation from perfect execution on the part of management, product teams, the culture, etc. That's not to say there's no one here with rose tinted goggles, but I think most people have their eyes open.
When I interviewed with Google, the over-the-top "Google is the best place to work evaaar" attitudes I got from the majority of people I interacted with gave me the distinct impression that it was like some bizarre cult. Most of them were so green they likely hadn't had any other job, so were unlikely to be able to know how silly they appeared to me (having worked for several companies in very different fields).
When I was at Google, some of us actually noticed that employees for which it was their first job sometimes complained more than the others ("zeroth world problems": they switched to smaller plates and trays) and had no idea how much worse it was elsewhere. You'll probably find a mix of everything.
There are degrees of enthusiasm and positivity. Everywhere else I've interviewed, people have been relatively positive since they want to sell the company to you and give you a good impression. At Google, it was way beyond that. I think cult-like is a good take on it; it was frankly a bit creepy and weird.
And as for the "recruiters", they didn't really try to sell Google at all. I think they assumed that the Google name was sufficient reason to want to work for them. (It isn't, or at least was not for me.)
> Yeah I've been at Google a decade and I strongly don't agree with the notion that it's hyper evangelized as the best place to work
This is my experience too. I've only been here for a year but what surprised me was how negative non-official internal communications about the company seem to be..
Note I don't necessarily disagree with their points but the lack of civility.
If there's that much internal criticism of mistakes, how are the mistakes made? I.e. multiple chat apps, terrible hardware design decisions (wtf Pixel buds?), etc?
Hah. I'm not sure it would matter that much to me if I were the only person who saw the flaws. Comp, work-life balance, interesting problems, and a minimum of local bullshit are what matter to me. My coworkers' attitude toward the company, be it positive or negative, or dysfunctions in another organization ten thousand people away from me, are much less influential on my well-being. That's just my take, obviously everyone else is entitled to their own priorities and I wouldn't look down on anyone for caring about the stance of the company as a whole. It's just not me.
I'm not ever wanting to work at Google, but that process resonates loudly with my experience of leaving academia.
From the inside you're dealing with a lot of people who have internalized the job as part of their identity and it's very difficult to just up and leave without formulating a narrative about why it's okay.
Very much second that; one prof I worked for at MIT as TA kept insisting that s/he (and we) have the best job in the world. Quite ridiculous, as s/he later was denied tenure and had to move and their research was quite stuck and un-impactful.
It was part of the personal narrative of the person (their identity) to keep telling that to themselves.
If you have to evangelize about how awesome it is to work there, that sounds like a cult and not culture.
It also sounds like Microsoft in the 90’s, when they were stepping on necks and didn’t give a shit about anybody else. Because they were better than everybody else and why should you worry about inferior people?
Although in MS’s case they took it a step further: we are the best people in the world.
Oh one one _has_ to evangelize. Google has norms, and talking more positively about things is one of them. Going outside of the norms is risky for your career in any political meritocracy.
I feel like you are talking about a completely different company. Googlers are critical about things all the time. People are encouraged not to be jerks about things but being critical about things isn't against the norm by any means.
But MS was known to use a lot of ugly PR tactics to weaken and purchase or obliterate competition. Google may or may not be doing the same thing but they don’t have a reputation of being cold blooded about it.
Yes, one needs a reason for leaving a company. But at the same time, one leaves a company or a religion or a relationship for a reason. The argument and reasoning necessitate the departure; they're not developed post hoc.
Of course, additional supporting reasons become clear as one looks for and finds the door, and the understanding for why a person or institution is wrong for you evolves as you separate.
I'd be interested in hearing more about how that understanding/perspective changes over time.
Everyone deals with crap at their workplace. Bad processes, unresponsive third-party dependencies, politics, etc. That happens everywhere, and anyone saying otherwise is either unaware or lying.
Eventually, there's a event that is enough standard deviations larger than the typical crap that the person just breaks. The veil of happiness is irrevocably pierced. And when that happens, all the other crap that they've been putting up with kind of comes crashing down. This is your "additional supporting reasons": they really existed the whole time, but they were at least tolerable before the veil was broken.
In my experience, it's rare that it's more like a dam that eventually breaks under pressure. There's usually that one event that finally breaks the person's will to continue. But then all the stuff that was being held back behind the dam is loosed and there's no coming back from that.
Agreed. And seven times out of ten (made up statistic, ymmv) that event is precipitated by one's management chain. Just yesterday someone reposted the article "People don't leave jobs, they leave managers."
If I thought that every single person who leaves a job leaves because of their manager, I would have said "ten out of ten times" or "always." But what I actually said was "seven out of ten times." :)
> Yes, one needs a reason for leaving a company. But at the same time, one leaves a company or a religion or a relationship for a reason. The argument and reasoning necessitate the departure; they're not developed post hoc.
It actually seems like this is frequently the case to me. A lot of people get to the point where they simply don't like coming into work everyday, and have to come up for a reason why they feel that way.
> A lot of people get to the point where they simply don't like coming into work everyday, and have to come up for a reason why they feel that way.
Since they "don't like coming into work", the reason already exists, they just (maybe) don't know it yet. As such, it isn't so much inventing a reason as it is discovering it.
I think there's also a difference between the actual reason you leave vs. the reason you tell all your Google friends vs. the reason you post to Medium. You can't tell your coworkers you disagree on politics, so you tell them you wanted to move back home. You can't tell the public audience that the work culture was too hard for you, so you tell them about Google's arrogance or some other thing. A lot of the human ability to rationalize comes from the need to explain your motives to others in a way that endears them to you.
Some people just can't say personally and openly to their boss that there is some problem in policy or system if they think it exists. So they trying to inform this way.
But it's not every case, some experienced specialists can just write story as summary to give some experience to young newcomers, to arouse interest, maybe answer possible questions.
Side note with nothing to do with the original discussion: My father decided to be honest and give constructive feedback during his exit interview when leaving a company similar in size and importance to Google. Then most of his peers retired and they asked him to come back and offered pretty massive incentives for a pretty small commitment. When he decided to accept? HR got involved and insisted he not be hired because he was "disgruntled" in his exit interview. So now when I leave a company my exit interview is 100% peachy with a vague cliche about why I'm leaving, and I might tell one or two very close friends who work there why I'm leaving. If I trust a company to value my feedback honestly enough, I probably won't be leaving for a while.
The reasons one supplies about leaving a company should always be about where you are going, rather than where you are leaving. It almost never makes sense to burn a bridge.
I think such situation exists in almost all high-salary sectors. Financial - why I left Golman/Merrill Lynch/Wall Street stories, etc. People will try to explain everything from moral side. It's permanent dilemma.
For sure, when it's gonna be another 5th wave of financial crisis employees just move between sectors - from private to state (more secure). I'm not sure it's somehow related to IT at all or Google in particular, but this migration type really exists.
In fairness, you really should have a good reason for leaving a company like Google. The pluses of working there are substantial. If you're leaving lightly, you are almost certainly making a mistake.
Considering compensation definitely drops in your 4th/5th year (because your on hire grant is fully vested and it doesn't get refreshed properly), you're almost certainly a sucker if stay longer than that rather than leave for a little while and then go back.
When I worked at Aflac, it was the largest civilian employer in Columbus, GA. It had the tallest building in town. If I made small talk while getting a haircut or buying lunch in town, people would ooh and aah that I had a job there. This was a little funny and surreal because I could not get promoted out of my entry level job. I felt like a loser, yet here were people acting like I'm not worthy.
When I quit, I left town and began doing freelance work. If I had stayed in town or transferred to a different job at a smaller company, I might have felt compelled to justify my decision to leave. I probably would have gotten a lot of social push back and inquiries as to why on earth I would do such a thing.
I imagine most of these posts are written partly for that reason. It cuts back on being asked in the first place and then you can email the link the next 20 times you are asked. Plus, it is free therapy, among other things.
I think this is accentuated because for a lot of people, when you move across the country right after college to work at a big company like Google, it becomes your life. Early on, you don't know anyone and you spend way too much time working because that's what you do when you're fresh out of college new hire in a new town. As time goes on, most of the friends you make are friends from work and even if you get a pretty healthy work-life balance, a lot of your free time is spent hanging out with your friends from work.
So when the time comes for you to leave the company, you aren't just leaving the company, you're leaving your entire life. It's the life change of leaving your job, getting divorced, and moving to a new town all rolled into one: it is one of the most significant events in your life, and you can't not think about it and try to understand it and explain it to other people.
The whole "work is life" thing is pretty weird, and I'm ambitious. Life has lots of interesting things that have nothing to do with JavaScript, why would you waste your youth on yet another JS framework?
I somewhat regret the large amounts of time I put into my side projects when I was young (20s). They definitely produced results in my career, but I'm uncertain if they provided that much of a boost. From my vantage point, you can get along quite well by latching on to a bandwagon and networking, rather than working so hard.
When did we stop doing side projects for yourself? If you are not doing side projects for fun of it then something is wrong. No one should feel they have to do a side project.
There was a tool at Google called 'percent' that you could run that would tell you what percent of the employees had joined Google after you (some measure of gravitas was associated with people who had been there 'a long time'). It was not surprising that Google hired a lot of people, there were like 50 people in my 'noogler' class. But the number of people reported as working at Google did not go up at a similar rate. When you did the math it was pretty clear there are many people who spend a relatively short amount of time there.
As a result I'm a bit surprised that there aren't even more of these stories. At lunch one day the topic came up and we joked it would be interesting if engineers could earn medals (similar to the ones in the military) for each company they worked for. It would make for an interesting fashion accessory.
One doesn't need to speculate about who is leaving.
It is very easy to tell exactly who leaves google. It has a list available to any employee which is auto-updated and often includes any farewell message the leaving person sent.
It was due to an advantageous loophole in the corporate dress code. About 2/3 of the software developers on my team did it. It was as much of an inside joke as the memorial stack of the useless, corporate-branded, brass-plated railway spikes that grew by one every time someone left the company.
Every time the c-level poured out more Flavor-Aid, we checked the height of the stack and estimated the days left until all of us would be fired for not resigning fast enough.
To name names: Corporation Service Company. If they buy your company, find a new gig ASAP.
Their primary business is registered agents. They are literally a company that provides services to corporations, related to their status as a corporation. Registered agents, annual filings, service of process, domain name registration management, etc.
At some point, they decided that intellectual property research and protection services were in their milieu, so they bought up the best team I have ever worked with, and summarily threw us all in the trash, because apparently all the value of the acquisition was in the code base rather than the personnel.
I would prepare a special place in Hell for the principals, if I could get there first.
> As a result I'm a bit surprised that there aren't even more of these stories.
I'm not all that surprised. I can see people that stay a relatively short period of time just attributing it to a bad fit, or blaming themselves. Once you've established yourself comfortably and see yourself as an employee (and not a "new hire"), it's much more obvious that the choice is purely because you decided you wanted to change the status quo, and that might be something people feel better about talking about, or even feel compelled to talk about.
On a somewhat related note, I have found Algolia to be an effective way to search for popular stories that got flagged. Once or twice a day I go to hn.algolia.com and view popular stories for the last 24 hours. This is also an effective way to review popular stories for the last day, whether they got flagged or not. Since Algolia is using a much simpler ranking than the Hacker News front page, you get a much more stable view, which is a nice alternative to submissions flying up and down on the front page at various speeds.
I'm curious to see what kind of discussion this generates before the HN mods inevitably kick it off the front page. Most of these links seem to be of employees who quit, but I'll add my article as a user who quit:
It's just the best option. I was recently about ready to fork it, actually, but the political problems upstream were fixed and it returned to being the best option.
A coworker uses DDG and each time we are talking about a problem at work (software development) and need to search something, I am disappointed by the lack of good results and make him use Google instead. It is currently 5 - 0 for Google if I recall correctly.
I would switch in a heartbeat if the results were comparable. Every time I’ve given it (or Bing) a shot for a few weeks, Google was simply better.
DDG requires a shift in habits to get good results. Google gives you better results because it knows you and you can be less specific. Search for "django framework" instead of "django", for example.
After using ddg for a while it feels much easier to find what I need using it than google. Maybe because I am not sandboxed correctly by google. Then again, ddg gives good results without sandboxing.
Interesting. Is it just me or shouldn't that be the default functionality? An added benefit is that DDG can then see what result the user picks, compare than to how well (if at all) DDG ranked that link.
!g redirects to google.com, so the results are not displayed or anonymized by DDG. If you want Google results without Google tracking, check out startpage.com. (!sp in DDG)
Yup. The only Google product that I've found hard to replace as someone who frequently needs to semi-coherently communicate in a foreign language is Google Translate. Google Translate still is far from perfect, but it's a decent enough check on my spelling and grammar, but it's lightyears ahead of any competition I've found so far.
Started typing some Japanese in there and it detected French! Then I noticed that it only supports a small handful of languages. I have to admit I use Google Translate too, though it's often pretty bad at translating Japanese.
I think a lot of people imagine leaving GMail as being very difficult but in my experience, not really. Get Fastmail and set it up with a custom domain. Not free, but suuuper cheap. Then go through all your accounts and update your email address. Forward GMail to your new email for a while. Done.
I did exactly this 2 years ago and it was just as painless as you described. Took a few months of slowly migrating various accounts to new email via forwarding. I’m just annoyed at myself for not having done it sooner.
You're just glancing over the part where someone has years of archived, labeled, tagged emails in a convenient searchable UI. Importing that isn't straightforward for a techie, let alone a non-techie.
At least not now. When their numbers start looking wrong and they have investors and stockholders barking down their nicks they will make choices that benefit them at your expense.
“First, I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind. If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it. We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand.”
Wouldn't it be nice if there were some "Previously-Known-By" HTTP header or meta tag? This way, upon seeing an NXDOMAIN or a 404, browsers could ask $SEARCHENGINE, "Hey. Find me any page advertising that it was previously known by $URL", and browsers could then offer to redirect the user to that new location.
Going the other direction is fairly easy, if you retain control over the original page, you can help people/search engines find the new page via the following:
* Meta refresh tags: `<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://example.com/" />`
Agreed. However, in this case they still own the domain, so GOTO is the way to go.
In fact that's the rub. If they still have access to the original page's location, then GOTO makes sense. If they don't have access, then how do you know you're getting what you hoped for?
What happens if I say I used to be https://google.com, and then through some disaster the Google homepage is inaccessible for 3 seconds? That's a lot of users that just filtered down to my potentially malicious site, no matter how low the conversion rate.
If the web was still a network of documents, I think something like what you're suggesting would be a lot more viable, particularly with hashing and signatures helping do the heavy lifting.
But as an application delivery platform that still looks and pretends to be a network of documents, suddenly that carries a lot more risk.
I thought about that. Making the "COME FROM" redirect a deliberate, explicit user action might help. ("Google.com is down. h4x0rz.ru claims to be its successor. Go here? [Yes] [No]".)
I incidentally made the same search yesterday because I had the same question regarding the tone, in light of how the most recent viral post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16220666) utterly slams Google.
Unless there's corporate malfeasance, it's counterproductive in the long run to talk so badly about a former employer, especially on a forever-archived blog post. Even if it does feel good to let out pent-up thoughts.
When I wrote a blog post about leaving Apple (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14270897), I made a conscious effort to be objective with the rationale why I left (to grow my technical skills), and not emotionally judge Apple as a company (I still strongly support Apple).
When Yegge made his infamous platforms rant, he was clearly hoping to convey (internally, to other Googlers) important criticism on Google's mistakes, which is a productive conversation to have. I have seen a lot of tweets in particular from Google employees that can only be described as 'butthurt' regarding this blog post... but if, with any luck, the right Googlers read his post, with a little self-reflection, "slamming" Google might be good for Google. Because like any other company, Google could change, and could improve.
And this is hardly a slam, he still specifies that he believes it is basically the best place to work, and his follow-up post provides a bit more context to the main quote from the previous blog.
Steve sees systems so when he describes problems he describes them using language that describes systems. And as his take on the challenge Google faces is largely similar to that of many others (including myself), I don't think it will hurt him to have this out there "forever."
Yeah, when you leave Facebook, you're leaving a lot. You're not just stopping using a piece of software, it's more like you're giving up relationships, you're giving up a piece of your social life. For better or worse, you're probably going to miss something when you stop using Facebook, so there is a tradeoff that needs to be made. You're changing your social contract. It's a big deal.
Meanwhile when you stop using Google products... no one notices. No one cares. It's a completely personal decision. I stopped using Google products one by one when I found competitors I liked better and absolutely no one knows and no one asks because no one cares. I can still email Gmail users and they'll never know. I can send someone an address that I got from Apple Maps and they can open it in Google Maps just fine. If they send me a Google Maps link, I can open it in Google Maps because I don't need an account and a profile and a friends list first. I can use Bing or DDG and no one notices.
It's a really big deal to stop using Facebook. It's a really big deal to stop working at Google. In both cases you're losing some part of your social identity. Not the case when you're stopping using Google products.
I don't miss a thing from quitting facebook, and despite how addictive the damn thing is, it was easily done and my quality of life increased in obvious ways. Potemkin relationships are not relationships.
Can you (or anyone reading) elaborate on details of how you did it? I'm surgically shrinking it and it's caused a good amount of turbulence... removing without communicating, and communicating removal are both difficult. The latter is probably better. But my ears are open for solutions.
I disabled posting to my wall for example, so on my birthday people struck up conversations instead. I anticipate I'll have it open for a while longer, but I'm removing people as we establish side channels so-far. I never added strangers but I'm not attached to everyone, like single conversation partners (I originally typed friends, haha, deprogramming).
I told everyone a week or two before I quit I was gonna quit. Those who wanted to keep in touch had a way to do so. Those who didn't, I don't care about. Downloaded my data, deleted my account, and moved on with life.
I think 1-2 people didn't get the memo and didn't read my blog (I blogged about it) and sent me an email wondering WTF.
I do have close friends I primarily keep in touch with using online tools; those talk to me on skype or equivalent.
That shouldn't be so difficult, friend. Just set that you don't use Facebook much lately, and then just stop going there. Now if you have a problem with staying away, then that's a different question!
It was actually interesting to read some of these. Most of them seemed to have really been turned off by the culture or the morals of what they were / are doing.
Maybe it's just that it's interesting and useful to look at why folks have left a workplace that is otherwise hyped up as the best place to work in the industry. We hear plenty about Google being a great place to work. We don't hear so much about why people move on from it.
Most people who leave Google also do so silently, and for same reasons as people leave other companies -- retirement, health, politics, better pay.
It's those who choose to trumpet their cause get the most attention though, and it is representative only of their personalities, rather than the workplace.
With all due respect, it sounds like your article would be full of pre-conceived ideas since you have never worked at Google. At least those who quit have lived it and know for themselves. (And someone else's experience might be quite different if he had been in that person's shoes.)
Well, this is where you are wrong. I have worked in the core team at several multi-billion dollar companies (e.g. Microsoft, NVIDIA, etc) and have received job offers to lead teams from other similar companies (including the one you mention and one of their fiercest competitor).
With all due the respect, your assumption that it would be full of pre-concieved ideas is simply wrong. I just have anti-bodies that fully reject the Kool-Aid and the cult-level fanboyism that is so common around these companies.
Regardless, I think working at a mega-tech-corp like any in the valley are immensely important. It shows you immediately that software is built by bureaucracy. Many large projects are in fact built that way; you have to collaborate with many teams.
Lots of people here talking about what it is like to work at Google or other companies.
I am puzzled that nobody is talking about the author's claim that Google has lost the ability to innovate and is not focused on users any more. Is he right or wrong?
Would this be useful to analyze the posters' sentiments and reasons while knowing what products / divisions they worked on / for and their position at G?
I gets attention, and forces Google to be yet again needlessly seen as an exception to the rest of the work-world, where leaving an employer to find work closer to your interests is natural and expected.
Would love to tab through a collection of the reasons the last 10-20 people left any particular company, and I believe we'd still likely fare far better in appearance and substance.
I would imagine a company like Google would have the foresight to include clauses in their NDA that forbid former employees from including the kind of specific and substantive reasoning for their departure that the public might actually find interesting. Not to mention a severance package goes a long way as far as taming that salty post-employment flavor. Oh, and there's the small matter of fact that they tend to pay well. I can only assume these factor into a lot into the standard reason being, "it's kinda personal but I felt like I'd be happier doing something different." Wow, what a revelation...
Man, I wish they actually offered departing staff severance and an NDA. Maybe if you're a VP. I know VPs who get booted out for sexual harassment get to keep their stock.
Sex harassment cases are hard to prove it's often a case of he said she said and hr (and the employee side) have to be very careful to be scrupulously fair and not jump to conclusions.
So its often easier to settle - this is true for those harassed being brave enough to go public and possibly be cross examined by a £2k a day barrister is a nontrivial thing to do.
